Wilderness Philosophy and Ethics

Modern
wilderness philosophers disagree on everything from what it is about a natural
system that makes it valuable to how to best manage (or not manage) the few
surviving wild areas still left on Earth. However they all agree that unaltered
wilderness is a valuable commodity that has both instrumental and intrinsic
worth. Wilderness philosophers pay close attention to the processes that make a
wild system what it is. Preservationists believe that the natural web of
complex interactions among species and their unaltered environment is wherein
the value of wilderness lies because these processes create the natural
products humans rely on. Preservationism attributes wilderness with possessing
an economical value as well as intrinsic worth (Oelschlaeger 292). Ecocentrism
is more detached from anthropocentrism than preservationist philosophy in that
humans play a more humble role in our relationship with the wilderness.
According to ecocentric theory, humans are not the reason for the Earth’s
existence- the Earth is the reason for our existence (Oelschlaeger 293).
Although a logical conclusion, it is one that is often ignored due to hubris or pride. Since Earth is the
reason for our existence, it is intrinsically good. Since it is good for
mankind, then humans have a responsibility to preserve the most pure areas and
restore those that have been destroyed. Any action taken towards these ends is
ethically good.

Teleology
is a branch of philosophy that studies the telos
of an object, meaning its purpose or aim. If an action allows something to
achieve its natural purpose, then that action is considered ethically good. Wilderness
philosophy emphasizes the interconnectedness of wild systems and the importance
of preserving entire ecosystems as opposed to single species. From a
teleological perspective the natural order is the morally good order, so
preserving entire systems makes sense because in doing so the natural processes
and components that allow the ecosystem to function are allowed to continue on.
However, it is difficult to define the final aim or purpose of an ecosystem.
Wilderness philosophy holds that there is no end product or goal. Ecosystems,
such as wilderness areas, are continuously functioning systems. This creates a
level of abstraction that separates teleology from wilderness philosophy
because it is difficult to designate the natural aim of a rock or other
inanimate object, yet ecological ethics maintains that inanimate items and
geological processes are just as important for ecosystem health as the living
organisms themselves.

Utilitarian
environmental philosophy attributes value or worth to an object depending on
how that object can be used for anthropocentric means. In other words, the most
valuable things are those that can create the most “good” for the largest
amount of people. Wilderness philosophy,
especially ecocentric wilderness philosophy, does not fit in well with
utilitarian tradition. Humans are not viewed as more important than any other
component of the natural world, and are not the reason for Earth’s existence. The
environment is intrinsically valuable as well as instrumentally valuable, and
our species is nothing more than a small part of a much greater whole.

Deontology
attributes morality and ethics to the adherence to duty. The morality of an
action is determined by the categorical imperative: act only in ways that all
rational beings would find acceptable. Deontology assesses morality based on
intent rather than consequence, which makes the attribution of morality
somewhat ambiguous. If two people are trying to achieve opposing means but both
have good intentions, according to deontology both people are acting in
accordance with the moral code. Since
intent is not always apparent, deontology is an arbitrary philosophical model. When
comparing modern wilderness philosophy with deontological theories one could
argue that humans have a duty to preserve wilderness areas for their intrinsic
value and any action towards this is ethically good. However, one could also
argue that humans have a duty to maximize the profits and resources available
to them to combat poverty, so any action towards this end would be ethically
“good.” When viewed from a deontological perspective saving wilderness areas
and exploiting them for their resources could both be considered ethically and
morally good.

Holistic
environmental ethics is based on the theory that the sum is greater than the
parts. The individual components of an ecosystem are what determine the
properties of that ecosystem. It is the complex interactions between all
elements of an ecosystem that make the system what it is. Without the parts the
whole cannot function. Holistic philosophy is very similar to modern wilderness
philosophy. Both disciplines emphasize the importance of the ecosystem as a
whole and view individual components of an ecosystem as the parts that allow
the system to run. The characteristics of the system cannot be properly maintained
if the pieces making up the system are disturbed or eliminated, so it is
important to protect all aspects of any wild system.

Joseph DesJardins argues that an
ethic of caring is the best model for how current generations should view their
responsibilities to future generations. An ethic of caring is based on the
philosophy that current generations should preserve natural resources, minimize
pollution and maintain a healthy environment simply because we care about the
people of the future. DesJardins states that “we care about the type of people
[future generations] will become, and we believe that a life lived in a world
in which wilderness areas and rare species are preserved is a better, richer
life than the alternative” (83). DesJardins gives several examples to
demonstrate that individuals are often motivated into action by concern for
future generations. This concern is expressed in many ways, including the
establishment of parks and refuges, the passage of environmental laws,
investments in preserving culture and the advancement of industry and medicine.
These actions show that current generations are motivated to provide future
generations with a decent life. An ethic based on caring emphasizes empathy for
future generations and the desire for future people to live as rich, meaningful
and happy a life as possible.

When
regarding future generations an ethic of caring, although idealistic, may not
be practical. With a large portion of the current world population in poverty
and lacking basic necessities such as clean water, it is unrealistic to expect
those struggling to survive today to be able to consider people of the future
to the extent described by DesJardins. It is arguable that the current
generation should focus resources and means on improving the quality of life
for people who are alive today before investing in people that do not exist
yet. However, it is also unrealistic to expect our species to advance if some
thought is not put into the generations that will succeed us. Innovation and
technology are perhaps the most poignant examples of this; without the
knowledge acquired by previous generations in these fields (and many others),
there would be no advancement whatsoever. An ethic of caring seems the ideal
philosophy to explain and encompass responsibilities of the current generation,
but one cannot make everyone care or even if they do care, act accordingly.
When adopting such a philosophy it is important to keep in mind that such
empathy for future generations will be difficult to achieve globally without first
providing basic necessities and ensuring basic human rights for the current
generation. Achieving both of these is well within our scientific capability,
however due to political, economical, social, religious and many other factors
we have not been able to work well enough as a species to achieve this. Current
generations have a responsibility to future generations to use resources
sustainably and preserve the environment but it is difficult to realize results
when it is done on a small scale, so global participation is necessary (and it
is difficult to get global participation for almost anything).

The
amount of knowledge mankind has gained from observing nature and natural
processes throughout time is incalculable, yet nature still continues to teach
our species something new every day. As conservationist Nancy Newhall said,
“The wilderness holds answers to questions man has not learned to ask yet.” However,
the fragmented areas of wilderness left on Earth are being harmed or destroyed
faster than scientists can study them, and thus we are losing potential
knowledge. Many people do not regard knowledge as a resource, but without it
being passed- and then built upon- from generation to generation the human
species would quickly die out. Preserving wilderness areas is absolutely necessary
for the successful propagation of the human species because in wilderness lies a
commodity that is invaluable- what future generations will learn from observing
and studying environments uninfluenced (or at least mostly uninfluenced) by man.
Many wilderness areas are such complex ecosystems that it could take hundreds
to thousands of years to return to a particular state if disturbed or destroyed.
Henry David Thoreau’s edict that “in wilderness is the preservation of the
world” should be taken very literally since the existence of life on Earth has
been solely dependent on wilderness and wild ecosystems for billions of years before mankind. By
destroying wilderness we are literally destroying the very thing that fuels and
enables modern life. An Earth rich with wild areas and clean lands is the most
valuable and precious thing we can leave to future generations if we care about
them and the future survival of the human species in general.

Comments

No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

sending

Author

Cheri Bermudez 6 years agofrom Maryland

Thank you for your comment. I'm glad you enjoyed the hub :)

jrsearam 6 years agofrom San Juan, PR

Many years ago when I was first exposed to Social Systems Theory and the concept of the Holon, I was struck by how all systems are also parts of increasingly more complex systems and how interconnectedness seemed to be an essential condition for all forms of life. Your hub was an intellectually stimulating reminder of this fact. Thank you for the learning experience. JR